tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News July 30, 2012 2:00am-3:00am EDT
thank you for being here on "fox news sunday." >> glad to be year are. >> chris: you explain your approach to judging which is texualism or originalism. what is that. >> sort of a sub species of textualism. textualism means you are governed by the text. that i only thing that is governed by your decision. not whether the outcome is desired. originallalism says that when you consult the text you give it the meaning it had when it was adopted, not some later modern meaning. so. >> chris: if it was the constitution written in the 18th century you try to find that those words meant in the 18s this century. >> the best example being the death penalty. i sat with three colleagues who thought it was unconstitutional but it is absolutely clear that the american people never voted
to proscribe the death penalty. they adopted a cruel and unusual punishments clause at the time when every state had the death penalty and every state continued to have it. nobody thought that the 8th amendment prohibited it. >> chris: you criticize and some of your colleagues another approach using a word i have to admit i did not know existed prior to reading your book? purposecivism. did i say it right? >> yes. and do i not make it up. >> what is it? >> probably the most pop you for form of interpretation in recent times. consulting the purpose of the statute and deciding the case on the basis of what will further the purpose. textualists consult purpose as well but only the purpose apparent in the very text. i have to gave you an example or you won't understand the
difference. let's assume a statute which provides that the winning party in litigation will obtain attorneys fees. the issue is whether that includes the fees paid to expert witnesses which can amount to the thousands of dollars. the purpose of this would be inclined to approach that by saying you know, what is the purpose of this statute. the purpose is to make the plaintiff whole so that the money he receives for winning the case is money he can keep and he doesn't have to spend half of it on expert witnesses. the textualists would say -- would not say that but you would say what is the understood meaning of attorneys fees. and in fact it was never thought to include expert witness fees. >> chris: all right. in a couple of years ago we had one of your colleagues would i think you would say is on the other side of the judicial
divide justice steven breyer on the show and he said it is impossible to apply the law as it was written. take a look. >> the founders didn't know that commerce included airplanes. they they didn't know about the internet or even television. the difficult job in open cases where there is no clear answer is to take those values in this document which all americans hold which do not change and to apply them to a world that is ever changing. >> chris: is justice breyer wrong? >> yes. that is a common and totally erroneous description of what originalism means. what originalism means is that you give the constitution the meaning that it had with respect to those phenomena that were in existences at the time. say the death penalty.
>> chris: but there are a lot that weren't. >> and for those, of course, you have to decide what the meaning ought to be. but the criterion for deciding what the meaning today ought to be is what was the understood meaning as applied to criteria at the time. for example in the death penalty. when the electric chair comes in. it is a new phenomena. what did the framers think of the electric chair? who knows. there wasn't any electric chair but they did have the death penalty and did impose death by hanging. what the originalists would say is the electric chair more cruel and unusual than hanging was and, of course, it isn't because it was adopted to be less cruel. and the same thing with lethal injection. >> chris: okay. in your book you lay out beyond the general argument 57 specific canons, principles for judging. here is number 38. you have 57. like the heinz varieties. statute should be interpreted in a way that avoids placing
its constitutionality in doubt. in other words, try to find a way to avoid judicial conflict with the legislature. canon number 38. >> right. >> chris: but you voted to strike down obama care which the legislature in this case the congress debated for a year and in your dissent you criticized chief justice roberts for following canon 38 by fiving that the -- you are taking your head -- for finding that the individual mandate is a tax. didn't justice roberts do exactly what you say a good judge should do, try to find a way to avoid striking down a law? >> if you read the rest of the section you would say to find a way to find a meaning that the language will bear that will uphold the constitutionality. you don't interpret the penalty to be a pig, it can't be a pig. and what my dissent said in
the -- >> chris: affordable care act. >> affordable care act was was simply there was no way to regard this penalty as a tax. it simply does not bear that meaning. in order to save the constitutionality you cannot give the text a meaning it cannot bear. >> chris: let's turn in the news right now you in relation to the massacre in colorado and that is gun control. you wrote in 2008 the opinion if district of columbia versus heller the majority opinion that said the second amendment mean hass it says, people have a right to bear arms. question, how far does that constitutional right go? can a legislature ban semi automatic weapons or ban magazines that carry a hundred rounds without violating an individual's constitutional right to bear arms? >> what the opinion in heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases. what limitations upon the right
to keep and bear arms are per missable. some undoubtedly are because there were some that were acknowledged at the time. for example there was a tort called a frighting which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people like a head axe or something that was i believe a misdemeanor. so yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. what they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time. there were certain location limitations. >> chris: what about the technological limitations. not talking about a handgun or a musket. talking about a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute. >> we will see. i mean obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand carried.
it is to keep and bear so it doesn't apply to it cannons. i suppose there are hand held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be -- this will have to be decided. >> chris: how do you decide that if you are textual? >> very carefully. my starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time. they had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne. so we will see what those limitations are as eye pl applo modern record. >> chris: there is one supreme court decision reading a lot of your writings and speeches over the years that seems to distress you more than any other and that is roe versus wade, the 1973 decision that says that women have a constitutional right to abortion. you say that it is a lie and in fact while generally willing you say to accept long standing
precedence you say you will continue to press to overturn roe. question, why? >> well, i am not sure it is accurate to say this distresses me more than any other. it is in my mind the clearest example of being a nontextualist and a nonoriginallallist. nobody ever thought that the american people ever voted to prohibit limitations on abortion. i mean there is nothing in the constitution that says that. all -- >> chris: what about the right to privacy that the court found in 1965? >> there was no right to privacy in the constitution. no generalized right to privacy. >> chris: in the griswold case the court said there was. >> indeed, it did and that was wrong. in the earlier case the court said the opposite. the way the fourth amendment reads is the people shall be secure in persons, houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures and the first time my court had a case in wiretapping it said that is not covered in the fourth amendment. that can be laws against it. it is not covered by the fourth amendment. the court reversed that. i don't know, 20 years later or so. in a wave of nonoriginallism. the constitution means what a it ought to mean. is simply doesn't cover that which means it is left to -- it is left to democratic choice as most things are. even important things like abortion. >> chris: the small meaning. >> let the legislature decide. >> exactly. exactly even in important questions. not just insignificant question but even in important questions like abortion. >> chris: have you you ever changed your mind in a case from casting your original vote in conference to when it is finally announced by the court? >> i have not only done that, i have changed my mind after
having been assigned to write the majority opinion. written the opinion the other way. it just wouldn't write. >> chris: and clearly you think there is nothing wrong with that. >> nothing wrong with that. >> chris: did chief justice roberts change his mind in the obama care case? >> i don't know. youville to ask him. >> chris: let me ask you you. were you at one point in the majority to strike down obama care? >> i don't talk about in terpal court proceedings. >> chris: just this once? >> never ever. never ever. >> and those who do, you shouldn't believe what you read about internal court proceedings because the reporter who reports that is either, a, lying, which can be done with impugnity. we don't respond. you lay back and take it. you down respond to the
principle. or b the reporter had the information from someone who was breaking the oath of confidentialallity which means that is an unreliable person. either way you should not put any stock in reports about what was going on in the secrecy of the court. >> chris: finley peter dunn once wrote the supreme court follows the election returns. how political is the court? >> oh, i don't think the court is political at all. i -- people say that because at least in the recent couple of years since john paul stevens and david suitor have left the court the breakout is often 5-4 with five. >> republican appointed judges. >> and four democrat on the other side. that doesn't show that they are voting their politics. it shows that they have been selected because of their judicial philosophy.
the republicans have been looking for regionalists and textualists and restrained judges for years and republicans looking for the opposite. why should is be a surprise that after, you know, aciddously trying to get people with the philosophies they end up with people with these philosophies. >> chris: willingly or not the court has been dragged into the political arena. president obama called out the justice its seated in front of him in the well of the house chamber for the court's decision on citizens unite. >> last week the supreme court reversed a century of law that i believe will open the flood gates for special interests including foreign corporation to spend without limit in our elections. >> chris: chief justice roberts said that he found that spectacle troubling. do you? >> this is a very mild adjective. i wasn't there. and it is yet another reason
why i will not be there in the future. i stopped going to what is essentially a political spectacle some years ago as did john paul stevens and i think bill rehnquist didn't go the last few you years. >> chris: do you think that when a president directs comments at the supreme court when they have to sit there like potted plants as was once said in the hearing and everybody else is standing or cheering do you think that is unseemly? >> i think you can look at it and come to your own judgment. i don't publicly criticize the president and he normally does not publicly criticize me. >> chris: he did in that case. >> i wasn't there. >> chris: he still did. then there was the president's statement in april after the oral arguments in the obama care case did not go well before the supreme court when seemed to be jaw boning the court. take a look at this. >> i'm confident that the
supreme court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress. >> chris: justice, what did you think of that? >> it is unusual. but as i say, i don't criticize the president publicly and he normally doesn't criticize me. >> chris: did you feel any pressure as a result of that to vote a certain way? >> no. what can he do to me? or to any of us. we have life tenure. and we have it presizely so that we will not be influenced by politics and by threats from anybody. >> chris: did you view that as a threat? >> i didn't view it as a threat. i'm not even sure i heard it. >> chris: well, you heard it now. >> i'm glad you brought it to my attention. >> chris: come on, you heard it. as a matter of just fact as a
legal scholar was the former constitutional law lecturer, correct? how unusual is it for the court or as the president put it there an unelected group of people to overturn an act of congress? >> i'm not going to engage in saying -- we have overruled -- marbury versus madison a very old case. we did just that and we have done it in a large number of cases since then. it is part of the function of the court. look, the most important role we play and the reason we have life tenure is precisely because now and then we have to tell the majority, the people that they can't do what they want to do. that they want to do is unconstitutional and therefore go away. is not going to make us popular and you can say it is undemocratic. this the small sense it is.
but it is the american people who gave us the power and said there are some things we are not going to let future legislatures do even if they want to do it and we are simply applying the judgment of the american people over time. >> chris: some people say you crossed the line last month in your dissent in the arizona immigration case. you brought up the fact that the president after the case had been argued and had been passed the fact that the president decided not to deport children illegal immigrants. take a look at your dissent. you wrote this. so say 80s court does that arizona contradicts federal law by earn forcing amplycations that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind to wit conservative judge richard poser in wrote about your dissent it gaves that part of the opinion the air of a campaign speech. your response? >> he is a court of appeals judge isn't he?
>> chris: yes. >> and he doesn't sit in judgment on my opinions as far as i'm concerned. >> chris: you sit in judgment of his opinions. >> that is what happens. >> chris: what about the argument, though,. >> and a people wonder why you push people's buttons every once in awhile. >> it is fun to push buttons. >> chris: is it? >> um-h'm. >> chris: why? >> when richard posner comes out with statement like that i should fire back a statement equally provocative. >> chris: here is the point that he is making. the president's decision months later after the case has been argued after the law has been passed what to do about immigration and deportating. >> have you read the whole opinion? >> chris: of course, you know i haven't read the whole opinion. >> neither have the people who read that quote. the context was that the sew lit issuesor general argued to the court that the only reason the arizona was suffering the
incursion of immigrants is there was not enough funding for immigration enforcement and executives had to make decisions about where to allocate the funding. i said in my opinion even that is no justification for letting -- for refusing to let arizona supplement the enforcement. so as long as it is only enforcing federal law and not going beyond federal law. i said even if that were the reason. with yobut i added i don't knot that the solicitor general's representation is any longer correct in light of the statement by the president which didn't talk about lack of funding but just simply said we are not going to enforce these provisions of the law. i didn't criticize that. i didn't say he had no property authority to do it. ii said he may well be right in doingt. it i demonstrates the point tht
arizona is being prevent from enforcing immigration law even when the executive rightly or wrongly chooses not to enforce it. >> chris: you have a reputation of being cantankerous on the bench, i would like to do a textual analysis. >> are you going talk about my book? >> chris: i have talked about your book. you wrote sandra day o'connor's decision cannot be taken seriously. the sheer apple sauce of the statutery interpretation should be obvious. are you cantankerous? >> those kittisms are criticisms of opinions not of my colleague. i'm a good friend of steve
breyer and i like him a lot and sandra da day o'connor. >> chris: and if they call one our opinions sheer a.m. sauce. >> if they can demonstrate that it is true kit i think apple sauce is good. >> it is not good in opinions. >> chris: you are 76 years old. will you time your retirement so that a more conservative president can appoint a like minded justice? >> i don't know. i haven't decided when to retire. >> chris: does it go through your mind if i retire i would like to see since you talked about republicans appointing one kind of justice and democrats is another, that you would want somebody who would adhere to your view? >> i would not like to be replaced by someone that immediately sets up downdidding what i tried to do for 25 years or 26 years sure. i should haven't to tell you that.
that will you think i'm a fool -- unless you think i'm a fool. >> chris: i was in the white house briefing room back in 1986 when ronald reagan. >> remember me there? >> chris: i don't. if you look at the picture i was over to the left. when rye began named you to the court and over the years at various points you admitted being discouraged at starting to repeat yourself. after 26 years on the job how do you feel about it these days? >> i am no more discouraged than ever. win soming lose some. i think we are fighting the good fight and i think things are better as far as the supreme court's jurisprudence is concerned by my lights they are better today than what they were 26 years ago. so it's all right. >> chris: any thoughts about stepping down? >> no immediate. no immediate thoughts about it, no. my wife doesn't want me hanging around the house, i know that. >> chris: i can underand it that.
justice scalia, the name of the book is "reading law." it is fascinating. you are fascinating. thank you so much for are coming in today to discuss judging. it has been a real treat. you have an open invitation to come back any time you would like. >> thank you very much. enjoyed being here. >> chris: up next a live report on mitt romney's overseas trip and our sunday group assesses how he is doing on the world stage. ♪
take them on a different course. >> chris: mitt romney today in israel meeting with prime minister netanyahu on the second stop of his foreign trip. for more let's bring in fox news chief political correspondent carl cameron traveling with romney and reports now live from jerusalem. carl? >> hi, chris. well, mr. romney met with israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu earlier today and they will dine again later this evening. before this morning's meeting romney aides say he would support israel should it decide to use military action in order to prevent iron fro iran from g nuclear weapons. >> your perspectives with regards to iraq and its efforts to become a nuclear capable nation are ones which i take with great seriousness and look forward to chatting with you about further actions we could take to dissuede iran from nuclear following netanyahu
seemed to criticize obama policy towards iran. >> we are to be honest to say that all of the sanctions and diplomacies have not set back the iran program by one iota. we need a strong and credible military threat coupled with the sanctions to have a chance to change that situation. >> reporter: the israeli newspaper reported that the obama administration briefed netanyahu on plans to attack the nuke program should diplomacy fail. but there are conflicting reports about whether or not these briefings actually occurred. anonymous israeli officials today said they did not. but mr. netanyahu's transportation cabinet minister on israeli radio said in fact they had. chris? >> chris: carl cameron with the romney campaign in israel. thanks for that. time for our sunday group. the "wall street journal's" kimberly strosse level.
liz marlantes and one williams. it seems that romney has put him solve on a bit of a tight rope on the trip trying to set forth h his foreign policy but not criticizing the president's policies while overseas. given all of those constraints what does romney need to do in israel and then starting tomorrow in his trip in poland. >> they chose these countries for specific regions which is to show the strongest possible contrast with president obama on foreign policy. not going to be a huge part of the election but voters need to feel comfortable. romney is out there with all of the trips to say my view is peace through strength, america has to return to a strong leadership position and part of that is we back our allies. he chose israel to go and say the president has lectured
israel, i'm not going to do that. he chose poland, the same thing one of the president's first decisions was to pull the plug on the missile defense system eastern europe had been looking for mckinley, to protect it. he will do that and the goal is to go out and say i'm here and i'm going to return us to that traditional standpoint of america strength and backing our al allies. >> chris: how you substantial do you think the difference is in foreign policy between the president and romney and to what degree you think romney can make it clear to voters in a way that they would care about that he would run a different -- >> that is the obama administration criticism of romney right now is that the difference seems to be largery one of tone. it is not clear when you look at what he is proposing in terms of policy there is that big a difference even for example on iran where he is offering up a lot of tough talk but the obama administration has not ruled out military action.
romney is saying sanctions with threat of military actions which is what the obama administration is doing also. including this they briefed israel on a contingency plan for military action. the criticism is there is not a lot of difference when it comes to substance. i think even on the tough talk one of the real sort of trademarks of romney personally has been throughout the campaign he is a kind of a pragmaticist and he has the business experience and tends to be sort of cautious. so some extent even the sort of off talk and sweeping rhetoric in thevfw speech seems a little at odds with romney's character. >> chris: to the veterans of foreign war here in nevada before he left. we will get back to that in a minute. first as we start to move backwards, london. the trip started with a difficult stop for mitt romney, i think it is fair to say, chip, in london. memorable for romney's
bewildering comment that he he wondered whether or not the brits were ready for the olympics and then the blistering reaction from british politicians and the media and take a look back at some of that. >> you know it is hard to know just how well it it will turn out. there are few things that were disconcerting. >> there is a guy called mitt romney who wants to know whether we are ready. he wants to know whether we are ready. are we ready? are we ready? yes, we are! >> chris: he said that to a crowd of about 60,000 people in hyde park. chip, as someone who managed mike huckabee in 2008 and managed other political candidates. how do you explain romney and i'm thinking how i will phrase this inartful performance in london. >> since the olympics started maybe call it an unforced error. that is usually losing the match. the good news is those 60,000 people were not voters or at least we hope not. depends on chicago's voting
strategy i guess. at the end of the day this should have been a lay-up trip. when you go to london you he has the olympic experience. you think the guy writhe the memo would say be positive. i think you saw ceo mitt romney come out which is kind of his default position say it looks pretty good but there could be problems and we need to work on this and people are like going huh and this unfortunately reenforces the kind of the mitt romney image of kind of aloof and not always understanding the situation. this is a wonderful time for great britain and they are super excited about the olympics just like they were in salt lake city and they didn't need someone come no contest there and trying to criticize them. even if they need it, that is not mitt romney's job at this point. >> chris: i wonder just wicking up on that whether -- just picking up on that that is part of romney's problem is too often he reacts as the business leader or olympic leader he used to be and not as the
potential president he now is? >> the point of criticism that he raised is legitimate. i think the british were concerned about security in advance of the olympics. the problem is here you don't come into somebody else's house and start criticizing. i think his purpose on the trip to get back to what we said earlier was to emphasize that he had a tremendously successful olympic experience in salt lake city. he came in and he was the sariour of those olympics. he wanted to burnish the olympics to say as compared to what i did they are not fully prepared. the problem is there was all this comeback including from the prime minister david cameron saying you go out and do that in the middle of the desert in utah. >> chris: it was the middle of no where. given the fact it was the winter olympics. >> as compared to doing it in an urban environment like london. that was the problem. the whole notion that the president somehow you is timid on foreign affairs doesn't play out in the minds of the voters. this is a guy who got bin laden
and got the troops out of iraq. this is the guy who successfully took khadaffi without getting the american troops involved. >> before romney left he spoke to the vet reins of foreign wars convention in nevada and had no problems attacking the president on foreign policy and his main target was that idea that the obama white house leaked national security, sensitive national security see vets to try to boost the president's reelection. let's take a look at some of that. >> this conduct is contemptible. betrays our national interests. it compromises our men and women in the field and it demands a full and prompt investigation by a special counsel with explanation and consequence. >> chris: with romney and the republicans can they make the voters care about the leaks and the question as to whether or
not top secrets have been divulged in a way that may damage u.s. operations or u.s. personnel for the political advancement of the president? >> they can. i think this is a problem for the obama administration. unfortunately for the republicans there isn't likely to be a resolution to this prior to the election. there isn't really any mechanism by you with which you can get to the bottom of the leaks and deal with this before the election. >> i disagree a little bit with liz on the contrast. i think there is a huge contrast which you saw laid out in that speech which is again contrast between romney talking about strong american leadership and what he has portrayed as the obama administration multilateralism, leading from behind, sort of spin its wheels. the other huge point of the contrast. >> chris: just to pick up quickly on that. when they he did take down bin laden, when ghadaffe is out of power is that something the voters really feel. >> put that next to syria and
what is happening there. one of the other big points of contrast romney made in the speech is the economy. a strong american economy is vital for a strong national security. >> chris: we will get there. let's take a break. when we come back how are the campaigns dealing with the latest set of bleak economic numbers? take
still if a position where we are pulling ourselves out of the very deep hole caused by the great recession and there is still, of course, a great deal of anxiety in the country about the economy. >> chris: white house press secretary reacting to new gdp numbers indicating the weak economic recovery is getting even weaker. we are back now with the panel. let's put the gdp numbers in context. in the final quarter of 2011 the economy grew 4.1%. then for the next three months the first three months of this year, it grew at only 2% and for the latest quarter ending in june, just 1.5%.
kim, you do not have to be a noble price winning economist to see that is heading in the wrong direction. >> and moreover this is the third such dip in as many years and i think the problem for the obama administration begins to chip at narrative which you heard jay carney say which is we have been in the big hole and it is hard to get out. if you look back historically the deeper the recession the faster the recovery because there was more ground to make up. the economy starts to get a little bit of confidence and then slides back down and that leads to a strong impression this has to do with obama policy and that is hear for them. >> let's pick up on that. the white house push back when you have a financial bubble and this particular kind of economic crisis that it takes longer to dig out of it and they say the specific solution, the policies are more spending, more stimulus and that congressional republicans are blocking that. can they sell that to the voters? >> i don't know. i mean i'm not an economist but
economic forecasts right now for what is going happen in the next quarter range from either maybe slightly better than that one to some people saying we could have another recession on our happens. the economic picture is not going to be good for them and it is hard for them. the one defense i think is that it is true you what the president said earlier to some extent which is that the private sector is actually doing slightly better than a lot of the problems have come from the public sector as state and local governments have been really, really hurting. there is that and the president says that his job plan would directly address that because it would go towards hiring more teachers and firefighters and more cops and that sort of thing. no, the economy is obviously the number one problem facing the president and to that extent the fact that mitt romney was over in london making unforced errors at a time when really this is the issue that his campaign should be hammering was not helpful. >> chris: they are still hammering it. speaking to the private sector there are those four words that
the president said you didn't build that which continue to resonate. let's take a look at how this week the romney and obama campaigns played them. >> if you got a business, that -- you didn't build that. somebody else made that happen. >> i'm an own oar of a small business and a busy built up from nothing without any help from nothing. >> those ads taking my words about small business out of context are flat out wrong. of course, americans built their own businesses. >> chris: how big a deal is this you didn't build that? how potent is weapon is it for the romney campaign and how significant is it that obama -- pa that is a big deal when the president instead of just showing things talks directly to the camera. they pulled out the big gun, the president himself. >> the biggest gun. a huge issue. as i have been out working in tennessee and some other states this is what everybody is talking about. the blood, sweat and tears from
the small business other than. i heard one time more than once the president said something like that because he never signed the front of a pay check and doesn't know what it takes to start from nothing and start a mom and pop business from the ground up. that is mitt romney's suit and he really has to drive it home. whether it was out of context or not 100 days, nothing is out of context. gdp going down. they feel like there is a double dip recession coming. this is the one thing that every day voters understand that the president just doesn't get it. >> chris: juan? >> i think what people know as a matter of policy the president has cut taxes small business in the country and going back to 2010 and the small business tax act. but it goes beyond that in my mind, chris. because the president in the saturday radio address went on to say, he said, you know, the republican trace gallagher six taken in terms of the tax cuts
voted on this week on capitol hill is if you cut taxes for the rich it will produce jobs and it will create jobs but in fact what he said was is that you know it is not going to produce jobs if you then go on to cut education training, plants, go about hiking taxes on middle class and that is a winning argument for the president. overwhelming polls show the american people think. >> chris: their thing is to extend all of the tax cuts, the republicans. >> they would say do not raise taxes on the rich and therefore block tax cuts for the middle class and if you do that the democrats -- and then all taxes go up. >> chris: they are saying extend all of the bush tax cuts. >> the reality is if you don't buy into the package that allows for tax hikes on the very rich you will get tax rights for everybody because the democrats will block it. >> chris: is that the republican's fault. >> yes, because they are locking the plan that would allow tax cuts to go into place
for 98% of americans. >> someone is talking about bombcies. the ron lemepolicies. this is about a gut feeling that people have. this is why he is out there responding. this is about identifying and on context. not just four little words. the sort of demenning comments he made about a lot of people work hard and a lot of people are smart. people see itth and go is this the kind of guy i want in the white house. does he understand what i do every day. when i hear things like on the gun control he really wants to take your gun or michelle obama talking about there are muslims taking -- or michele bachmann talking about there are muslims taking the government and infiltrating. and building roads and they say he this is evidence that he hates small business. the policies, he cut taxes for small business. >> it is more about world
vision. do you think government creates jobs. that is why they are reacting to this. >> i built those bridges. i know i did that. >> chris: that doesn't mean that you built apple. >> no, but somebody had an idea out of a garage and two people put their life into it and built apple. >> chris: we have to leave it there. check out panel plus where the group picks right up with the discussion on our website fox news sunday .com. we will post the video before noon eastern time and talk about antonin scalia and the extraordinary interview so tune in. follow us on twitter @ "fox news sunday." up next, our power player of the week.
>> chris: with the olympics now in full swing we want to tell you about one of america's is greatest athletes that we first met in may. she is building a life after the olympics is. and she is doing it in washington. here is our power player of the week. >> it is one adventure after another. >> michelle kwame is the most decorated figure skater in american history. for decades her life revolved around competitions. >> nationals in january and march world championships. olympics maybe in february. everything was planned out is since 7 years old all the way to competing to 25 years old that is what i did. that was my schedule. >> chris: but three years ago while training for another olympics she chose a different
passion. she went to graduate school to get her master's degree in international relations. >> it was so scheduled and then to actually wake up and say oh, what do i have to do today? it is sort of that identity trying to figure out who you are. >> chris: kwan started down this path in 2006 when she attended a white house event and made an offhand remark to secretary of state condoleezza rice. >> i said if there is neglect i can do in the state department let me know. a few months later i was appoint. >> i know you will play an important and valuable role for our nation. >> chris: kwan has traveled the world engaged in power meeting with government leaders and young people and trying to make connections. >> perhaps when they go into their cost government or their business they have a different impression of america. >> chris: she is just as driven as she was on the skating rink.
now, a member of the president's council on fitness and deeply involved in the special olympics. all of these things are unpaid, correct? >> um-h'm. >> how do you support yourself? >> i have been fortunate in my skating career. i have toured for 14 years and financially i'm okay. >> chris: since last summer kwan has been living here in washington almost tally under the radar but finds d.c. just as exciting as skating. >> now, just being here in washington and being surrounded by people who want to make a difference and think tanks and nonprofit, government, it is just so inspiring. >> chris: at age 32, michelle kwan is remarkably well adjusted. while she won nine national championships and five worlds, the best she could do at the olympics was a silver and a bronze. >> chris: do the two defeats in the olympics still sting? >> i mean it is -- it wasn't exactly the color that i was
looking for but hey, sometimes you can't be perfect. >> chris: but you get the feeling the best is yet to come. >> in figure skating i felt in some ways that i was selfish and i had coaches and choreographers all approaching me and now i approach life differently where i'm trying to help others. i also is see it as just a chanter in my book and that although it is my skating career it is only one chapter and i'm sort of turning the page to the next chapter. >> chris: michelle kwan says she may run for office some day. after all, she spent years on the ice with nine judges watching every move she made. facing voters, she says wouldn't be all that different. that is it for today. have a great week and we'll see you next "fox news sunday." captioned by closed capt
male spirit present.trong it's the priceline negotiator. >>what? >>sorry. he wants you to know about priceline's new express deals. it's a faster way to get a great hotel deal without bidding. pick one with a pool, a gym, a great guest rating. >>and save big. >>thanks negotiator. wherever you are. ya, no. he's over here. >>in the refrigerator?
>> you didn't build that. >> jeb bush said the president should be encouraging invasion. >> you can't have a president that is looking down saying the entrepreneurs are not relevant. the next president needs to lead. >> and gives his take for keeping campaign. >> i admire what rick scott is doing. scott walker went in a fire storm and came out. >> and plus, politics that go beyond dirt. >> hands off our bodies. twisting candidates words and going after their families and beliefs. >> when the opponents came after jim and me and our children we went woah what have we gotten into. >> how they dealt attacks. ladies and gentlemen, governor mike huckabee. [applause]
>> thank you, thank you very much. and welcome to huckabee, from the fox news studios in new york city. president obama appears to be willing to play chicken with congress because he is raising taxes on people he decide are too stinking rich . trouble is, even the washington post hardly a conservative tool and fed chairman ben bernanke are warning of the consequences of what is accurately termed tax maged con. the bush tax cuts and the affect of the huge tax increase that is associate wide obama care temperature will arrive on december 31st, 2012. if congress doesn't act tax magedon will not adequately describe nothing short of an economic pock -- apocalips. there will be 500